evaluating the role of collaboration in npd team climate for...

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management

Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

© IEOM Society International

Evaluating the role of collaboration in NPD team climate for innovation.

The whole is other than the sum of the parts – Kurt Koffka

Syeda Asiya Zenab Kazmi

PhD. Project Researcher,

University of Vaasa, Finland.

[email protected]

Marja Naaranoja ,

Associate Professor, University of Vaasa, Finland.

[email protected]

Abstract

Today’s world and its globalized business environment focus heavily on designing effective team climate based on

innovation and collaboration to protect their corporate interests as well as market share. The referred corporate

requirement is discussed and analyzed in the current study by attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of new

product development team climate based on team collaboration to strengthen innovation process on the basis of a

newly established research tool and a newly validated extended theoretical framework. The survey is conducted on

30 team member’s representing new product development (NPD) operations at three selected work locations (i.e.,

Finland, Norway and the UK) of a European multinational company. The results of the study reflected the desire to

establish strong team climate potential supported through team collaboration to support innovation at the studied

work locations.

However, the weak areas in operations management were identified as the real time team cooperation, effective

communication process and timely completion of work targets, limitation in the capacity of data collection and

record keeping. All the above referred areas are critically significant in building effective NPD team’s innovative

capabilities to strengthen healthy NPD team climate supported through collaboration and innovation.

Keywords New product development team climate, market positioning, collaboration, innovation.

1. Introduction

For long collaboration might be as old as humanity itself and its gaining more and more significance in the modern

corporate world. One of the most common reason for corporate collaboration is streamlining business risk and costs.

Collaboration is essential to the individual worker as well as the work team and the overall company’s growth. In

truth, collaboration is extremely important element in business. So much so, considering corporate collaboration like

teamwork, the companies often end up building great team, but might not always achieve great outcome. The

innovation management is connected to the generalized view of today’s corporate world which connects the

corporate idea that no single company, particularly with reference to the technological advancements can do

everything on its own anymore in the globalized environment. Building effective teams include challenges like

corporate trust development, effective communication, global outreach, ethical limitations, ability to convey social

presence, lack of information-rich nonverbal cues etc. (Kirkman et al., 2002). In-depth empirical studies conducted

during approximately three decades on analyzing corporate success factors have focused on the area of innovation

and collaboration to support new product development processes (Cooper’s and Kleinschmidt, 1995; Heskett, 2001;

Sparke, 1983; Jevnaker, 1998; Leenders et al., 2007; Murray and O’Driscoll, 1996; Kazmi, Naaranoja, 2015). Referred studies have focused either on the internal organizational elements that hold influence on NPD activity to

gain competitive edge through reaching the market needs early through innovation and team collaboration (Kazmi,

Naarananoja, 2014).

2993




The focus of the current study is to unearth the potential of organizational culture that promotes ethical standards

and guarantees conducive team climate supported through team collaboration to support innovation. Such

organizational potential will further ensures effective team climate to ensure corporate success and profitability.

Hence, the current paper starts with the introduction of the referred concepts i.e., team climate with the special focus

on team collaboration to support innovation. In the initial section of the paper, the author will briefly cover the

literature review of the main subject areas i.e., New product development team climate, collaboration etc. Later, the

paper will through light on selected research methodology. The study will be concluded with an in-depth analyses

and discussion on the study results.

2. Literature Review

2.1 NPD team climate and team collaboration According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995), while taking into consideration the concept of entrepreneurial or

NPD team climate, the following aspects must be considered:

Opportunity for employees to spend part of their work time in developing their personal ideas,

Company’s support for the official projects, even if those projects were terminated by the

management,

Venture capital, structures to assist the realization of creative ideas.

Cooper’s and Kleinschmidt (1995) recommended a holistic view, in connection with the requirements for success of

NPD activity, covering the organizational perspective, as follows:

Strong and responsible project leader. This factor is considered on the basis of numerous studies.

The emphasized logic is that the project leader must offer enough authority to manage individuals

representing various areas of strengths. In addition the leaders must ensure high level of

commitment towards the NPD project by motivating their teams.

Cross functional NPD teams. This factor was introduced by Brockhoff (1994) as an efficient

instrument to overcome organizational interfaces. Moreover, cross functional teams encourage

inter-functional communication and cooperation to promote success (Balbontin et al. 1999;

Maidique, and Zirger, 1984; Yap, and Souder, 1994).

Dedicated NPD team for a project. Numerous studies have confirmed that the autonomy of NPD

team ensures positive impact on the success of the project (Gerwin, Moffat, 1997; Thamhain,

1990).

Commitment of NPD team for NPD project. The commitment of the project leader and his or her

team may have significant influence on the success of NPD project (Balachandra, 1984; Thanain,

1990).

Effective communication between the NPD team members during the process of NPD. This can be

achieved by sharing information among the NPD teams and organizers in project meetings

(Balachandra et al. 1996; Ebadi, Utterback, 1984; Rothwell et al. 1974; Souder, Chakrabarti, 1987;

Thamain, 1990)

The ‘product champion’ structures are identified as success factor for new product development. The ‘product

champion’ principle implies that a dedicated team, with its members showing extensive personal commitment to the

NPD project (Song and Parry, 1997). Occasionally, in order to overcome some internal obstacles, that are blocking

new product development processes, associating the champion’s team with the help of powerful ‘promoter’ is

necessary (Fang, and Ou, 2007). The promoter belongs to the senior management layer and can effortlessly

guarantee necessary resources for project development.

2.2 Organizational collaboration and networking The theory of critical mass in social networks defines the mechanism that how density of social connections in a

group improves its prospects for collective action (Marwell, Oliver and Prahl, 1988; Kazmi; Kinnunen, 2012;

Kazmi, 2012). However, it is believed that culture can severely restrict any corporate strategy selected to begin with,

due to the myopia of shared beliefs among decision makers regarding the organization’s goals, competencies, and

environment (Casey and Goldman, 2010; Lorsch, 1985).

2994




Teece, (1986) proposes that the phenomenon of organizational cooperation refers to collaborative research and

development activities, joint ventures and strategic alliances, and is highly relevant to organizations that are seeking

new ideas relating to their corporate operations for their extension beyond the localized market. The reason why

organizations indulge in networking and research cooperation is that they require information in the areas of

complementary assets, specialized equipment and know-how, which they lack or consider insufficient. According to

Brush and Chaganti (1996), organizations which specialize in technical operations are more likely to have a focused

and planned strategy of cooperation. A substantial number of empirical studies provide evidence, confirming that

customer orientation is significantly related to firm performance (Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden, 2005). From

the firm’s perspective, customer orientation is achieved if the voice of the customer is systematically integrated into

various stages of the NPD process (Bowen, Siehl, and Schneider, 1989).

2.3 Organizational market positioning Empirical studies for approximately three decades have focused on analyzing success factors (Cooper’s and

Kleinschmidt, 1995; Heskett, 2001; Sparke, 1983; Jevnaker, 1998; Leenders et al., 2007; Murray and O’Driscoll,

1996) of new product development. These studies have focused either on the internal organizational elements or the

factors that influence NPD activity to gain competitive edge through reaching the market needs early. These

parameters are actually the ones that can be influenced instantly with the support of the company’s management.

NPD success variables are classified according to the NPD process; organization, culture, role and commitment of

the senior management and the overall corporate strategy. Angle (1989) proposes that the new idea generation

process is grounded in the organization´s creativity in addition to its ability to anticipate opportunities for

innovation.

Cooper’s and Kleinschmidt’s (1995) work has identified positive influence on the overall NPD process due to

effective linkage between two aspects, namely the use of market information along with NPD process, at the

company level and the proficiency of activities linked to each and every phase of the overall NPD process (Kazmi,

Takala, Naaranoja, 2014 ; Kazmi, S. A., Naarananoja, M., & Kytola, J. 2015a; Kazmi, S. A., Naarananoja, M., &

Kytola, J. 2015b; Kazmi, Takala, Naaranoja, 2015). This includes effective product idea generation, product

development, test marketing and market introduction. The significance of the initial aspect is further supported

through numerous studies that highlight the significance of critical commercial evaluation of the NPD projects.

Initial in-depth market assessments, covering the technical aspects are decisive in NPD project. Taking into

consideration the recommendations of Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995), following four aspects are suggested for an

effective NPD process:

Explicit definition of the product concept and target market before product development,

Conducting extensive investigation on the technical and market-oriented feasibility and commercial

evaluation.

Conduct research on the targeted market and the competition in order to align the NPD process along with

the market demands.

Designing an effective NPD process.

Involving the customers, assessing and utilizing their feedback within NPD activities are of paramount significance.

The early stages of new product development, additionally termed as fuzzy front end (FFE) (Koen et al., 2002;

Smith and Reinertsen, 1991; Kazmi, Takala, 2011; Kazmi, Takala, 2012; Kazmi, Naaranoja, Takala, 2013; Kazmi,

Naaranoja, 2013; Kazmi, 2016).), involve planning and evaluation activities that determine the `go` or `no-go`

decision to either abandon or to accept the product idea to formally proceed to the product development process. The

notion of democratizing product innovation by empowering customers to take a greater role in corporate NPD (Von

Hippel, 2005) has gained attention over the years. Such NPD approach has encouraged numerous companies

globally (e.g. Adidas, BMW, Ducati, Procter and Gamble, 3M) to involve their customers and other stake holders to

incorporate their customers’ innovative new product ideas into NPD processes more actively, more directly, and

more systematically (Fuchs, Martin, 2010; Pitt et al., 1996 Kazmi, Naarananoja, 2014; Kazmi, Naaranoja, 2015a;

Kazmi, Naaranoja, 2015b; Kazmi, Naaranoja, 2015c). However, this is recommended not only in the earlier phases

when the new product process needs to be aligned with the market needs but during the prototyping and market

introduction phases as well. Furthermore, the final authority and control is required to be strictly centralized, since

the company that designs and develops the products reserves the ultimate rights to decide whether to produce or

otherwise (Fuchs, Martin, 2010; Pitt et al., 1996).

2.3 Research questions

2995




What are the general challenges affecting team collaboration to the target organization while designing supportive

NPD team climate related processes for innovation?

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

The aim of this study is to take into account three specialized groups, having 10 professionals each, representing

new product development related work operations and roles) from three globally separate locations of a single

European multinational company; Finland, the UK and Norway on the basis of their professional expertise and

operational relevance. A specialized feature of the selected work locations is that each one of the unit is engaged in

different types of product manufacturing i.e., Finland – Power engines, The United Kingdom – Green energy

solutions, Norway- Marine products and service solutions. The selected quantitative approach is the survey

methodology which is performed through an email based questionnaire having 50 fixed ended items. Evaluation of

the subject company´s new product development culture is carried out by combining quantitative and qualitative

research methodologies. The qualitative approach, on the other hand, is involved with putting together an

organizational case study through in person and email based interview questionnaire. Finally the feedback obtained

from those 30 respondents were analyzed by employing statistical analyses.

3.2 Construction of survey tool

The concept of new product development (NPD) team climate (Sun, Xu, Shang, 2012) refers to an organization´s

capacity to offer supportive practices to its work teams, involved in new product development operations. The

selected indicator seeks feedback to reveal organizational practices in relation to new product development idea

generation team potential through team collaboration. In total, ten questions items were designed/ modified by

following new product development (NPD) team climate related characteristic introduced by Professors Sun, Xu,

Shang (2012) in their research inventory. Table 1 below shows the details.

Table 1.Survey instrumentation on NPD team climate

Questions 25 to 34 Indicator

Q25: Team members display

agreement with the team´s objectives

NPD team climate- Collaboration

Q26: Team members feel understood

and accepted

NPD team climate- Collaboration

Q27: Team members keep each other

informed

NPD team- Collaborative communication

Q28: Team is capable of making real

attempts to share information

NPD team- Collaborative communication

Q29: Team is strong in searching for

new ways of looking at product

development problems

NPD team- Idea generation through team

collaboration

Q30: Team is cooperative in

developing and applying new ideas in

collaboration with key individuals

from other departments

NPD team – Idea generation through team

collaboration

Q31: We, as a work team, are

capable of cooperating with other

work groups

NPD team collaboration

Q32: In our organization, work

performance is considered as an

overall and combined phenomenon.

NPD team collaboration

Q33: We, as a work team are able to

complete work targets on time.

NPD team Responsiveness for collaboration

Q34: The team´s ability is considered

“quick” while responding to

problems.

NPD team Responsiveness for collaboration

2996




The table 1, above, displays the question items 25 to 34 of the study tool. Such items are linked to the study

construct, NPD team climate and based on the selected study variables namely, collaboration, collaborative

communication, idea generation through team collaboration, responsiveness for collaboration.

3.2.1 Reliability check for NPD team climate based on collaboration to support organizational innovation

In the case of the NPD team climate construct, Cronbach Alpha was calculated as 0.81 representing `good` internal

item consistency to anticipate (Cronbach , 1951) the overall construct reliability. The estimated alpha values detailed

below present the internal consistency for each item:

Table 2. Reliability check of selected research question items linked to the construct; NPD team climate based on

collaboration

The table 2 confirms that all the construct items are reliable and acceptable due to having their `Alpha` values over

0.8, therefore, all the construct items must be retained.

3.3 Results and analysis

To respond to research question of the study on the basis of quantitative data analysis, the author refers to the

combined study results for the referred constructs displayed in table 3. The items in the categories of `new product

team climate linked to the concept of team collaboration in Table 3 below presents the question statements receiving

predominantly neutral or clear disagreement.

Table 3 Combined results for NPD team climate linked to collaboration for organizational innovation

Item

No.

Variables Count Average Median Unique Std.

deviation

Confidence

Interval at

95%

Highlighted

Response

trend

25 Team members display

agreement with the team´s

objective.

30

3.8 4 4 0.48 3.77 – 4.03 Agreed with

76.6%

26 Team members feel

understood and accepted. 30 3.9 4 4 0.54 3.71 – 4.09 Agreed with

80%

27 Team members keep each

other informed. 30 3.7 4 4 0.74 3.44 – 3.69 Agreed with

66.6%

28 Team is capable of making

real attempts to share 30 3.7 4 4 0.59 3.49 – 3.91 Agreed with

2997




information. 70%.

29 Team is strong in searching for

new ways of looking at

product development

problems.

30 3.8 4 4 0.66 3.56 – 4.04 Agreed with

73.4%

30 Team is cooperative in

developing NPD ideas with

members from other

departments, if required.

30 3.46 4 4 0.81 3.17 – 3.75 Agreed with

53%.

31 We, as a work team, are

capable of cooperation with

other work groups.

30 4.06 4 4 0.82 3.77 - 4. 35 Agreed with

83%

32 In our organization, work

performance is considered as a

combined phenomenon.

30 3.63 4 4 0.61 3.41 – 3.85 Agreed with

63.3%

33 We, as a work team, are able

to complete work targets on

time.

30 3.5 4 4 0.93 3.17 – 3.83 Agreed with

53%

34 The team´s ability is

considered to be quick to

respond to problems.

30 3.73 4 4 0.82 3.44 - 4.02 Agreed with

70%

A total of 30 responses, contributed toward evaluating the quality of the current practices and clues for filling the

gaps. The response mean average for all the ten items representing the construct variable ranged from 3.46 to 4.06,

which indicates agreement with the posed evaluation queries. On the basis of the survey recipient’s feedback, the

NPD - team climate category reached beyond the ‘agreed’ opinion level between 4 and 5, on a scale of 1 to 5.

In all the ten items (i.e, from items 25 to 34) reliability exceeds the satisfactory level of agreement. For comparative

analysis, the eight items in this category were divided into four groups. An item orientation scores representation

follows;

Fig 1. Graphic representation of results – NPD Team Climate – study variable collaboration.

Questions No. 25-26

Item 25: Team members display agreement with the team´s objective (construct’s variable – Collaboration)

The number of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the item are 23 (76.6%) in total. The respondents

having a neutral opinion are 7 (23.3 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. No respondent disagreed with the

item. The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment reflecting neutral responses (23%) belong to

Norway (13%) mainly, while Finland (10%) scored moderately. The neutral responses came from the team members

belonging to the product and sales (10%), project management (3%) and general management (10%) related work

roles.

Item 26: Team members feel understood and accepted (construct’s variable – Collaboration)

The number of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the item are 24 (80%) in total. The respondents

having a neutral opinion are 6 (20 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. No respondent disagreed with the

item. The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment reflecting neutral responses (20%) belong to

Norway (13%) mainly, while the UK (7%) had a moderate score. The neutral responses came from the team

members belonging to the product and sales (3%), project management (7%), design (3%) and general management

(7%) related work roles.

2998




Fig 2. Graphic representation of results – NPD Team Climate – study variable Collaborative communication.

Questions No. 27-28

Item 27: Team members keep each other informed. (Construct’s variable – Collaborative communication)


having a neutral opinion are 8 (26.6 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. The respondents who disagreed

with the item are 2 (6.6%). The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showed disagreement

belonged to Norway (3.33%) and the UK (3.33%) moderately. These negative responses came from the team

members belonging to the product and sales (3.33%), project management (3.33%) related work roles.

Communication

Item 28: Team is capable to make real attempts to share information. (Construct’s variable – Collaborative

communication)


having a neutral opinion are 8(26.6 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. Only 1 (3%) respondent disagreed

with the item. The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing disagreement belongs to the

UK (3%). This negative response came from the team member belonging to the project management (3%) related

work role.

Fig 3. Graphic representation of results – NPD Team Climate – study variable Idea generation through team

collaboration. Questions No. 29-30

Item 29: Team is strong in searching for new ways of looking at product development problems. (Construct’s

variable – Idea generation through team collaboration)


having a neutral opinion are 7 (23.3 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. Only 1 (13.3%) respondent

disagreed with the item. The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing disagreement (3%)

belonged to Norway (3%) moderately. This negative response came from the team member belonging to the product

and sales (3%) related work role.

Item 30: Team is cooperative in developing NPD ideas with members from other departments, if required. (Construct’s variable – Idea generation through team collaboration)

2999





having a neutral opinion are 10 (33.3 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. Only 4 (13%) respondents

showed disagreement with the item. The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing

disagreement (13%) belongs mainly to the UK (10%), with moderate disagreement from Norway (3%). The

negative responses came from the team members belonging to the project management (3%), design (3%), and

general management (3%) and technical engineering (3%) related work roles.

Fig 4. Graphic representation of results – NPD Team Climate – study variable, Collaboration.

Questions No. 31-32

Item 31: We, as a work team, are capable of cooperation with other work groups. (Construct’s variable – Collaboration)


having a neutral opinion are 3 (10%) out of the 30 respondents in this category. The respondents who have disagreed

with the item are 2 (7%). The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing disagreement

(7%) belongs to Norway (3%) and the UK (3%). These negative responses came from team members belonging to

the technical engineering (3%), product and sales (3%) related work roles.

Item 32: In our organization, work performance is considered as a combined phenomenon. (Construct’s variable

– Collaboration)

The number of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the item are 19 (63.3%) in total. The respondents having

a neutral opinion are 10 (33.3 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. The respondents who have disagreed

with the item are 1 (3.3%).

The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing disagreement belongs to the UK (3.3%)

moderately. This negative response came from the team member belonging to the project management (3.3%)

related work role.

Fig 5. Graphic representation of results – NPD Team Climate – study variable, Responsiveness for collaboration

Questions No. 33-34

Item 31- We, as a work team, are capable to

cooperation with other work groups.

Item 32- In our organization, work performance is

considered as a combined phenomenon

3000




Item 33: We, as a work team, are able to complete work targets on time. (Construct’s variable – Responsiveness

for collaboration)


having a neutral opinion are 9 (30 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. The respondents who disagreed

with the item are 5 (16.6%). The comparative analysis revealed that the population showing disagreement (16.6%)

belongs to the UK (6.66%) and Finland (6.66%) mainly while Norway (3.33%) moderately. These negative

responses came from team members belonging to project management (10%) and design (6.6%) related work roles.

Item 34: The team´s ability is considered to be quick to respond to problems. (Construct’s variable – Responsiveness for collaboration)


having a neutral opinion are 6 (20 %) out of the 30 respondents in this category. The respondents who disagreed

with the item are 3 (10%). The comparative analysis revealed that the population segment showing disagreement

(10%) belongs to the UK (7%) and Finland (3%). The negative responses came from team members belonging to the

general management (7%) and technical engineering (3%) related work roles.

4. Conclusion

This survey based study offers a case study based research tool to interpret and evaluate the effects of NPD team

climate on team collaboration while supporting organizational innovation process for timely market positioning. The

statistical results of question items 25, 26, 27 and 28 linked to the conceptual agreement for team collaboration

focused on operational management related variables i.e., Team members display agreement with team´s objective,

Team members feel understood and accepted, Team members keep each other informed and Team is capable of

making real attempts to share information reflected 76%, 80%, 66% and 73% agreement respectively. The

rationale behind the above trend is the logic that corporate collaboration is essential for corporate success. For this

purpose, such NPD team climate is considered healthy that promotes team’s ownership (ref. question item 26),

effective communicational flow (ref. question item 27) and strong communicational networking among teams (ref.

question item 28). The study results reflected slight weakness in the area of effective communicational flow. The

results of question items 29, 30, 31 and 32 linked to the items; Team is strong in searching for new ways of looking

at product development problem, Team is cooperative in developing NPD ideas with members from other departments, if required. We, as a work team, are capable of cooperation with other work groups and In our

organization, work performance is considered as a combined phenomenon reflected 73%, 53%, 83% and 53%

agreement respectively. The trend of responses, in case of question items 27, 28, 30, 31 and 32, reveals the logic that

the global, fast-moving, service-driven world we are living in is bringing collaboration to the front and therefore

promoting the concept of thinner hierarchies. This further calls for the need to build innovative organizational teams

that are large and extended, sometimes virtual, diverse and constituted on highly qualified professionals to support

challenging NPD projects. Finally, the results of question items 33 and 34 linked to the items; We, as a work team,

are able to complete work targets on time and The team´s ability is considered to be quick to respond to problems

reflected 53% and 70% agreement respectively. The response trend however, reflected obvious contradiction in

terms of the percentages of the set of similar questions item numbers 33 and 34. This response trend confirms the

natural corporate drawback linked to the phenomena explaining the fact that the qualities required for organizational

success are more or less the same factors that challenge corporate success. In addition to above, the implementation

of the newly devised specialized survey tool and proposed theoretical framework revealed weakness in the areas,

mainly, real time team cooperation (ref. question items 27, 30, 32 and 33) effective communication process (ref.

question items 27, 30 and 32) and timely completion of work targets (ref. question item 33), limitation in the

capacity of data collection and record keeping (ref. question items 27 and 30). All the above referred areas are

critically significant in building effective NPD team’s innovative capabilities to strengthen healthy NPD team

climate supported through collaboration and innovation.

Acknowledgements The author sincerely acknowledges the opportunity offered by Mr. Juha Kytöla, Vice President, Wärtsilä, to finalize

one year project research, involving its three global work locations; Finland, Norway and the UK. This research

venture has made the following publication possible. The author extends her gratitude to the Project in charge,

3001




Professor Marja Naaranoja, and Professor Jussi Kantola, Head of the Department, Production, University of Vaasa,

Finland, for offering departmental solutions and encouragement. The author would like to thank the anonymous

reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments and suggestions.

References Angle, H. L. (1989). Psychology & organizational innovation. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, and M. S.Poole

(Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies (pp. 135–170). New York:

Ballinger/Harper and Row.

Balachandra, R. (1984). Critical signals for making go/no go decisions in new product development. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 1, 92–100.

Balachandra, R., Brockhoff, K. & Pearson, A.W. (1996). R&D project termination decisions: processes,

communication, and personnel changes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 245–256.

Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R. & Souder, W.E. (1999). New product development success factors in

American and British firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 259–279.

Bowen, D.E., Siehl, C., & Schneider, B. (1989). A framework for analyzing customer service orientations in

manufacturing. The academy of management review, 14(1), 75-95.

Brush, C.G., & Chaganti, R. (1996). Cooperative Strategies in Non-High-Tech New Ventures: An Exploratory

Study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, winter, 1996, 37-55.

Casey, A. & Goldman, E. (2010). Enhancing the ability to think strategically: A learning model. Management

Learning, 41, 167-185. doi:10.1177/1350507609355497.

Ebadi, Y.M. & Utterback, J.M. (1984). The effects of communication on technological innovation. Management

Science, 30, 572–585.

Fang, w.,& Ou, L. (2007). The Relationship of innovative culture and entrepreneurial climate to new product

development projects success. IEEE.

Fuchs, C. & Schreier, M. (2011), Customer empowerment in new product development. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 28: 17–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00778.x

Gerwin, D. & Moffat, L. (1997). Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering. Management

Science, 43, 1275–1287.

Heskett, J. (2001). Past, present and future in design for industry. Design issues 17(1), 18-26.

Jevnaker, B. H. (1998). Building up organizational capabilities in design. In: Management of design alliances:

sustaining competitive advantage. M. Bruce and B. H. Jevnaker (eds): 13-37.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Kinnunen, T. (2012). Deep leadership coaching effectiveness in a corporate scenario, constitutes

proactive leadership solution for `Optimal Team formation`, European Journal of Social Science (EJSS). Vol.

31, Issue 2, June 2012. pp 166-189 - ISSN: 1450-2267

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Naarananoja, M. (2014). Overpowering Environmental Inconsistencies during NPD Activity

Ensures Sustainability-Part of courage is simple consistency. Peggy Noonan. Journal of Engineering

Technology (JET), 2(2). http://dl6.globalstf.org/index.php/jet/article/viewFile/787/807.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Naaranoja, M. (2015a). Cultivating Strategic Thinking in Organizational Leaders by Designing

Supportive Work Environment! Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 43-52.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Naaranoja, M. (2015b). Fusion of Strengths: T-style Thinkers are the Soul Savers for

Organizational Innovative Drives and the Allied Change Processes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,

181, 276-285.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Naaranoja, M. (2015c). Innovative Drives Get Fuel from Transformational Leadership's Pied

Pipers’ Effect for Effective Organizational Transformation! Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 53-

61.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Takala, J. (2011). Aiming for effective Industrial Operational Management through

Transformational Leadership-Quest for the best fit as an Optimal Team!, proceedings of the 10th International

Conference of the Academy of HRD (Asia Chapter), Malaysia.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Takala, J. (2012). Entrenching Strategic Competitive Advantage through Transformational

Leadership! in proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operational

Management (IEOM-2012), July 3-6, Istanbul, Turkey. Pp.2517-2526.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., (2012). Conquering environmental inconsistencies during the New Product Development (NPD)

activity lead to corporate sustainable success`, in proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Industrial

Engineering and Operational Management (IEOM-2012), July 3-6, Istanbul, Turkey. pp 2552-2559.

3002




Kazmi, S. A. Z., (2016). Fusing Strategic Thinking and Transformational Leadership to Harness New Product

Development (NPD) Team Dynamics for Innovation (Doctoral dissertation). ISBN: 978-952-476-663-0.

Retrieved from http://www.uva.fi/en/research/publications/orders/database/?julkaisu=822

Kazmi, S. A. Z., Naaranoja, M., & Takala, J. (2013). Diverse workforce supported through transformational

leadership ensures higher operational responsiveness. Global Business Review, 2(4). (Print ISSN: 2010-4804,

E-periodical: 2251-2888) DOI: 10.5176/2010-4804_2.4.253

Kazmi, S. A. Z., Naaranoja, M., (2013). Comparative approaches of key change management models – a fine

assortment to pick from as per situational needs! Presented in the 3rd Annual International Conference(s)

organized by Business Strategy and Organizational Behavior (BizStrategy 2013), Print ISSN: 2251-1970, E-

Periodical ISSN: 2251-1989 : DOI: 10.5176/2251-1970_BizStrategy13.41.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., Takala, J., & Naaranoja, M., (2014). Creating optimal teams through transformational leadership!

4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia.

Kazmi, S. A. Z., Takala, J., & Naaranoja, M., (2015). Sustainable solution for competitive team formation. Journal

of Global Strategic Management. 9(1). 5-16.

Kazmi, S. A., Naarananoja, M., & Kytola, J. (2015a). Fusing theory to practice: A case of executing analytical

strategic leadership tool. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 6(4).

Kazmi, S. A., Naarananoja, M., & Kytola, J. (2015b). Harnessing New Product Development Processes through

Strategic Thinking Initiatives. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 6(3), 28-48.

Kirkman, B.L., B. Ros en, C.B. Gibson, P.E. Tesluk and S.O. Mcpherson, 2002. Five challenges t o virtual team

success: lessons from Sabre Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 67-79doi:10.4018/ijsds.2015070103.

Kirca, A. H., Satish J., & William O. B. (2005). “Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its

antecedents and impact on performance,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24–41.

Koen, P., Ajamian, G. & Burkart, R. et al. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the "fuzzy front end".

Research Technology Management, 44 (2), 46-55.

Leenders, R. T. A. J., van Engelen, J. M. L., & Kratzer, J.,(2007). Systematic design methods and the creative

performance of new product teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other? Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 24(2): 166-179.

Lorsch, J. W. (1985). Strategic myopia: Culture as an invisible barrier to change. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton,,

and R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 84-103). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Madique, M.A., & Zirger, B.J. (1984). A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S.

electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 31(4), 192–203.

Marwell, G., Oliver, P., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the critical mass. III.

The American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 502–534.

Murray, J. A. & O'Driscoll, A. (1996). Design as strategy. In: strategy and process in marketing, Murray J.A. and A.

O’Driscoll (eds.) Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall Europe..

Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Roberston, A.B. & Townsend, J. (1974). SAPPHO updated – project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy, 3, 258–291.

Smith, P. G. & Reinertsen, D. G. (1998). Developing products in half the time, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,

New York, 1998.

Song, X. M. & Parry, M. E., (1997). The determinants of Japanese new product success. Journal of Marketing

Research .34 (February): 64-76.

Souder, W.E. & Chakrabarti, A.K. (1978). The R&D/Marketing interface: results from an empirical study of

innovation projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM- 25, 88–93Sparke, 1983;

Sparke, P., (1983). Consultant design. The history and practice of the designer in industry. Pembridge Press, London.

Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing

and public policy. Research Policy (Elsevier) 15 (6): 285–305.

Thamhain, H.J. (1990). Managing technologically innovative team efforts toward new product success. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 7, 5–18.

Von Hippel, &Eric A., (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=712763).

Yap, C.M. & Souder, W.E. (1994). Factors influencing new product success and failure in small entrepreneurial

high-technology electronic firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 418–432.

Biography

3003




S. Asiya Z. Kazmi, is a Post-doctoral Researcher, graduated from the Faculty of Technology, University of Vaasa,

Finland. Her research interests are in the areas of organization development and leadership, and new product

development in addition to the academic fields namely; change management, creativity and innovation etc. Her

academic and professional affiliation with multiple academic disciplines (i.e., applied psychology, Business

administration, Law, Finance and Industrial Management) enables her well to combine the knowledge fields and

evaluate corporate scenarios from various dimensions.

3004

evaluating the role of collaboration in npd team climate for...

Documents